HISTORICAL SKETCHES OF MUSICAL FORMS.
By MYLES B. FOSTER, Organist of the Foundling Hospital.
A
lthoughit is stated that the ancient Greeks intoned their tragedies, and introduced, besides, some form of melody (μέλος), the whole question of the existence of opera at that period of artistic prosperity, when all forms of learning were so powerfully nourished, is a matter for speculation. Their authors certainly give us wonderful accounts of the great effects that this music had, and state that it formed an essential part of their drama, but beyond these records, in all probability much exaggerated, we have no data. Opera we must assume to be a comparatively recent invention. To the end of the sixteenth century, composers had written all their finest work for the Church, and had, very rightly, devoted their best efforts to the praise and worship of the Giver of all musical ideas and beauties.
Even that which was known as secular music, and was intended for social occasions, was written in ecclesiastical forms, and the very folksongs had their freshness rubbed off by contrapuntal developments to which they were not suited, and were dragged in their new and ill-fitting costume into the masses and motetts of the day. The Church possessed most of the art and learning of the age, and, with that, a corresponding power over the ignorant people. Thus music had been, so far, choral music; all the secular forms, villanellas, glees, madrigals, and lieder, being in from three to six parts and more. The expressive solo form (monodia), whetherrecitativoorarioso, was as yet unknown. As the people attained more knowledge, and with it more freedom, secular music gradually separated itself from the restraints of the Church, and, as in other parallel cases, freedom at length degenerated into licence.
At the end of the great Renaissance period, when, after Suliman had taken Constantinople, the great scholars there fled before the conquering Turks into Italy and other new homes, an impetus was given to the study of Greek literature, and a desire to repossess the Greek drama in all its original beauty and perfection was the ambition of many an Italian student. In Florence the poet Rinuccini, the singer Caccini, Galilei, the father of the astronomer, and, at a rather later date, Jacopo Peri, used to hold meetings in which they not only agreed that the existing musical forms were inadequate for a true musical drama, but they proceeded forthwith to compose pieces for one voice on what they imagined to be the Greek model.
Emilio del Cavalieri is one of the first composers known to have tried to set music to the new form of drama. The poetess Guidiccioni (mentioned in the sketch “Oratorio”) supplied the words. His first efforts were “Il Satiro” and “La Disperazione di Fileno,” and they were performed in Florence in 1590, the poems being set to music throughout.
Peri followed with his “Daphne,” in whicharia parlante, a kind of recitation in strict time, first appears. It is well described by Ritter, in his “History of Music,” as “something between well-formed melody and speech.” It appears to have pleased the Greek revivalists immensely, and they quite believed it to be the discovery of the lost art. Peri composed “Euridice” in the year 1600, on the occasion of the marriage of Henry IV. of France with Maria di Medicis, and in his work we have a primitive version of all our operatic forms.
Composers now occasionally used theariosostyle; but their Greek beliefs prevented them from introducing a good broad melody form. The principal numbers of “Euridice,” for example, were choruses and declamatory recitatives. The orchestra was hidden behind the scenes, the only purely orchestral piece being a little prelude (called “Zinfonia”) for three flutes.
With such material and upon so simple a basis was opera formed—an art construction which, in its more modern garb, has played a very important part in the history of European society.
Of really great composers who advanced thisdrama per musica, one of the earliest and most important was Claudio Monteverde. He imbued it with his musicianship and originality, employing particular effects for each scene and for each character, his object being to unite the varying sentiment of the poem with his music. In his operas, the first of which was “Orfeo,” new and less cramped forms of accompaniment, giving singers greater freedom in dramatic action, followed such reforms as a better use of rhythm and more truthful illustration of sentiments, whilst an increased orchestral force was added to other means of expression.
The Italian Church writers began to compose operas, and in the seventeenth century we find the recitation form receiving new vigour and truthfulness of detail at the hands of, amongst others, Cavalli (whose real name was Caletti-Bruni), Cesti, and Alessandro Scarlatti, Carissimi’s greatest pupil. Scarlatti did much for the opera. He is supposed to have invented the short interludes for instruments between the vocal phrases, and he certainly introduced the first complete form of aria, known as the “Scarlatti-form,” which, however, with its tiresomely exact repetitions, seems to us quite artificial, and anything but dramatic. About his timerecitativo, as we know it, was separated from thearia parlante.
Succeeding Scarlatti, came the pupils of his Neapolitan school, amongst whom were Durante, Buononcini, Porpora, Jomelli, and others, and with them we reach a period during which the opera-form sadly deteriorated.
Composers had broken away from the ecclesiastical forms—nay, more, the chorus had become of no importance, but, instead, the new aria, which might have taken an advantageous position as a means for occasional soliloquy and meditation, without interference with the dramatic story, now usurped the place of the latter altogether, and an opera meant nothing more than a string of arias in set form, an excuse for showing off the best voices to the greatest advantage, the most successful work being that one which pandered most to the vanity of the singers, who altered and embellished the melodies of their mechanical slave, the composer.
Dramatic significance was fast disappearing, and a reformer was sadly needed, and that reformer appeared early in the eighteenth century in the person of Gluck, a Bohemian, who, after studying in Italy and writing several operas after the traditional Italian models, settled in Vienna, and there worked out his great ideas of regeneration and reform.
His “Orfeo,” produced in 1762, created a great sensation, and in Alceste (1766) we find him, to quote his own preface to it, “avoiding the abuses which have been introduced through the mistaken vanity of singers and the excessive complaisance of composers, and which, from the most splendid and beautiful of all public exhibitions, has reduced the opera to the most tiresome and ridiculous of spectacles.”
He considered that music should second poetry, by strengthening the expression of the sentiments and the interest of the situations, and adds, “I have therefore carefully avoided interrupting a singer in the warmth of dialogue, in order to wait for a tedious ritornel; or stopping him during one of his sentences to display the agility of his voice in a large vocal passage.” He greatly increases the importance of the introduction or overture, making it foreshadow the nature of the coming drama.
Composers were either too hardened or too cowardly to at once follow and imitate his excellent reforms, and great disputings and much rancour ensued, Gluck being opposed by the singers and the old school headed by Piccini.
We will leave thisopera seriafor a moment, restored to its high position in art, and glance at a lighter form, theopera buffa, or comic opera, which may be traced to the littleentr’actes, orintermezzi, given as a sort of relaxation between the acts of plays, as early as the sixteenth century. At first, madrigals, or favourite instrumental solos, were used for this purpose; later on, when operatic forms appeared, you find scenas or duets, in which the chief idea was to raise a laugh, very often at the expense of good taste. Scarlatti’s pupils developed theseintermezzi, and gave them such artistic importance that they grew to be rivals to the grand opera, and eventually held their own position asopera buffa. Pergolesi was most successful in this style, and his “La Serva Padrona” (1746), one of the earliest specimens, was a great favourite. The accompaniment was for string quartett only, and there were but twodramatis personæ. His fellow student, Leonardo Vinci, wrote several comic operas, and further on, Nicolo Piccini, whom we have just left opposing Gluck in Paris, made many advances inopera buffa, giving greater contrasts and more elaborate and effectivefinalesthan his forerunners. In fact, he was stronger in this sort of composition than inopera seria, to which latter we now return.
We find at the end of the eighteenth century the brilliant and successful works of Paisiello, a rival, at that time, of Mozart. At the same period Sarti, Salieri, Cimarosa, Paër, Righini, and others wrote operas.
The spirit of revolution, which was uprooting all old traditions, good and bad, at the end of the eighteenth century, forced even the Italian composers to see that more was required than they had ever given, to make opera what it should be, and they were compelled to acknowledge that, after Gluck’s reforms and their still lasting effects, and after Mozart’s influence and his noble examples, they must take up higher ground if they would succeed in other than the Italian cities.
They composed, therefore, in a more serious manner for Paris or Vienna, and the Italian opera gained a fresh importance by the slightreforms thus adopted, and through the successful power of Rossini it again held sway in the principal European courts.
Rossini made a great many melodies and much pecuniary profit, and finding the singers ready to return to those abuses against which Gluck had protested so strongly, rather than permit them to play tricks with his music and embellish his melodies, he made the trills and embroideries so fulsome himself that there was nothing left which they could add!
In the present century Mercadante, Bellini, and Donizetti followed in his train; following them comes Verdi, who is still living, and whose later works are very fine, being a happy combination of immense dramatic insight with effective situations and great melodic charm. We find in Boito the most decided attempt to unite Italian traditions and the latest German development. Thus much for the land in which opera was born.
Opera soon spread, and travelled to the various European courts, and became there the amusement of noble and wealthy patrons. Such prestige did it carry with it, that to be successful in England or Germany, a composer had to write in the Italian style.
France, whilst building upon the Italian foundation, created an opera in many ways differing from that form. Real French opera was first written by Lulli at the end of the seventeenth century. He will be ever remembered as the inventor of the overture, which replaced the small introduction of the Italians. Another thing he did which was new: he brought into his scheme the dance or ballet; and a third point was, that in his operas the chorus played a most important part.
Following Lulli, we see Rameau greatly developing all these resources.
When Gluck migrated to Paris he found the supporters of Italian opera backed by such essayists as Rousseau and Baron von Grimm, and named the “Bouffonists,” opposing the “Anti-Bouffonists,” who adhered to Lulli and Rameau. Also there were Philidor, Gretry, and others trying to combine the new and old styles. Gluck cut down the superabundance of melody, adapted his own reforms already referred to, gave the overture its true connection with the poem, and, as it were, out-Rameaued Rameau. With all his works produced in Paris he made great successes, notwithstanding his rival Piccini’s powerful opposition.
We will again leave Gluck elevating, for this time, the French stage also, and glance atopera comique, a term used in France as early as 1712.
I suppose that the equivalent of the Italianintermezzowas thevaudeville. Claude Gilliers appears to have written many about this period.
In the latter half of the century Dauvergne composed “Les Troqueurs,” in imitation of the Italianintermezzi, and in this work the dialogue, which inopera buffawould have been sung, was spoken, a custom still adopted in France. Duni, Philidor (a wonderful chess-player), and Monsigny wrote manyoperas comiques. Gretry also appeared at this time as one of the superior composers—also Gaveaux, Gossec, and J. J. Rousseau, followed by D’Allayrac.
To return to grand opera, the man most influenced by Gluck and his advances was Mehul, whose “Joseph” and “Le Jeune Henri” are well known, and who possessed undoubted talent. In the present century I may mention Catel, Isouard, Berton, and Boildieu, the latter’s “Calife de Bagdad” and “La Dame Blanche,” and other works having been received at the time with enormous enthusiasm.
Two composers, Italian by birth, Cherubini and Spontini, wrote much in the style and under the influence of the French opera. We all know and like Cherubini’s “Les Deux Journées,” “Medea,” and “Anacreon.”
Spontini is spoken of as “the composer who embodied in his operas the life and spirit of the Empire under the First Napoleon.”
Coming into this century, we notice, as important French opera composers, Hérold, of “Zampa” celebrity, Adolphe Adam, and Auber, who studied under Cherubini, and composed more comic operas than anything else, and whose work always contains light elegant melody and brilliant orchestration. Halévy has earned a good name by such operas as “La Juive” and “La Reine de Chypre.”
An exceptionally great man was Hector Berlioz, who strove in new paths, and in the face of great opposition, to base his efforts upon the study of Gluck, Weber, and Beethoven.
Meyerbeer, though born in Germany, wrote as much for French opera as for any other. He seems to have been a sort of musical turncoat, and every turn brought golden success. He became the greatest of French opera writers; but, in addition, he wrote German opera for Germans, Italian for Italians, and ensured by this system of “all things to all men” the applause which he so highly coveted.
To conclude our French list, there is a composer, whose “Faust” will live long; I allude to Charles Gounod, who has written many other operas containing great dramatic beauty, richness of orchestration, and grace of melody. Following him are Bizet, whose “Carmen” has been so popular, Massenet, and Ambroise Thomas.
In England there is but little history to give you.
English music and drama were first connected in a primitive way in the early miracle-plays and mysteries performed at Chester and Coventry and in other towns.
Shakespeare, in his plays, gives several directions for musical interludes, and introduces songs and choruses, more particularly in “As You Like It,” “Twelfth Night,” and “A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” In the first half of the seventeenth century William Lawes, and Henry, his brother, wrote music to the masques, in which poetry, music, scenery, and mechanical accessories were combined, producing a decided advance in the direction of real opera; but, notwithstanding the patriotic championship of budding English opera by these gentlemen of the Chapel Royal, and notwithstanding the existence of the great school of madrigal writers, they were never encouraged to attempt dramatic work, as the nobility already demanded Italian opera and Italian composers and singers. During the civil war, and until Charles II.’s restoration, the theatres were closed by the Puritans, and even from 1660 they were only opened for five years with an occasional performance of a masque by Sir William Davenant, the then poet laureate, set to music by Locke, in one of which, “The Siege of Rhodes,” we find the recitative style used, and spoken of as new to England, although well known on the Continent.
After those five years came the Plague, and following it the Great Fire, so that it was not until nearer the end of the century that a fair start was made in opera, and that the powerful and masterly works of Henry Purcell saw the light. His genius was undoubtedly superior to that of Lulli in France or Scarlatti in Italy, and he became a power, not in England only, but throughout Europe. Alas, that he should have died so young! The form of opera settled by him and his followers was similar to the French and German, in that whilst the important parts would be sung, the subordinate dialogue was spoken, and there was no accompanied recitative, excepting in some of Dr. Boyce’s and Dr. Arne’s operas. Arne’s “Artaxerxes” has the dialogue,à l’Italienne, set entirely in recitative form.
But these were exceptions. Dibdin, Dr. Arnold, William Jackson (of Exeter), Shield, Storace, Attwood, Sir Henry Bishop, and many others adhered to the spoken dialogue. It should be quite understood that their music, when it occurred, formed an integral portion of the whole work, and, therefore, differed from interpolated pieces, which could be withdrawn without breaking a sequence.
In 1834 John Barnett produced his “Mountain Sylph,” the first important English opera in the strictly modern style of that age, and one which introduced the school typified by Balfe, Wallace, and Macfarren. Italian influence was evident, and has only lately been supplanted by the power of Germany, and, in one or two noteworthy instances, by the graceful delicacy of the French school. But the time for English opera is ripe; we have watched the dangers into which other schools have fallen; we have seen their heroes extricate them from those dangers; we have learnt what reforms are needful; the generous support and encouragement which has assisted the Italian, French, and German schools should now place all mercenary consideration on one side, and extend itself freely to those native artists who, in a spirit of true patriotism, are striving for the reputation and artistic honour of our country.
To Handel we owe the final settlement of Italian opera in London, for which end he composed over forty operas, none of which are remembered, but from whose pages the good numbers were extracted and transferred to his oratorios!
Comic opera, originating in Italy and developing in France, had, and still has, some footing in England. A very successful specimen was “The Beggar’s Opera,” performed in 1728 at Rich’s Theatre, in Lincoln’s Inn, with a libretto by Gay. So enormous was its success, that people said, “It made Gay rich, and Rich gay!” From this and following successes arose the ballad opera, a form of comic opera taken up by the best composers. “The Duenna,” music by Linley, words by Sheridan (Linley’s son-in-law), may be quoted as an excellent specimen. Finally the wealth of England has been able to procure and import the finest foreign works and artists, and its riches have assisted in impoverishing what little native art we possessed.
For the last part of my sketch I have reserved German opera.
Although Italian opera soon worked its way into Germany, in fact, as early as the year 1627, when we reach the end of our story, we shall find the Germans in possession of the most advanced form of modern drama.
Heinrich Schütz set the first opera to music. It was Rinuccini’s “Daphne,” already set by Peri in Florence.
Italian style and Italian vocalists reigned supreme until the time of Gluck, with such exceptions as the Hamburg operas of Keiser and Handel, which contained German characteristics, and also the attempts on the part of Hasse, Graun, and Naumann to combine Italian and German qualities.
With Gluck came the great reforms in Vienna, as elsewhere, and there, too, party feeling ran high, Gluck being warmly opposed by Hasse and his party. In Ritter’s admirable “History of Music,” already largely quoted from, whilst blaming the German princes for obtaining Italian operas at extravagant cost, he asks us to remember that these same princes “prepared the road, however unconsciously, for a Gluck, a Haydn, and a Mozart; for all these masters’ early efforts were rooted in the Italian school of music.”
Germany all this time had no national opera, the Hamburg attempt failing for want of encouragement.
As we have previously done in dealing with the other countries, so now we will glance at the lighter form of opera for a moment.
The Germanoperette, orsingspiel, was brought into notice by Johann Adam Hiller about the middle of the eighteenth century. He produced numbers of these, full of charming original melodies, and with spoken dialogue, as inopera comique.
Amongst several writers of these light works we may number Schweitzer, André, and Benda, who introduced the melodrama, in which dialogue is spoken during an undercurrent of expressive and illustrative music. There is also Johann Friedrich Reichardt, composing, at the end of the seventeenth century, a sort ofvaudevilleknown as the “Liederspiel.”
Contemporary with these stand Dittersdorf and Haydn, and, in Southern Germany, Klauer, Schenk, and Müller.
These small operas at first rather imitated the French school; but at the time of the above composers the national life and sentiment, in however insignificant a manner, had crept in, and the germ of a national type existed.
At such a critical moment came the great genius who was to develop the elements of both serious and comic opera, and raise them to a lofty pedestal, and that genius was Mozart.
Whilst accepting the forms of his day, he gave to them new life and meaning, and his illustration of each character, together with his masterlyensemblesandfinales, in which, whilst each singer maintains his individuality, clearness is still pre-eminent, will ever abide as marvellous examples of dramatic scholarship and musical beauty. Besides understanding exactly what the human voice was capable of doing, he raised the orchestral accompaniment to a very high position.
Whilst GluckattackedItalian opera, Mozartmouldedit in such a fashion that the old stiff traditions were no longer possible in Germany.
At the commencement of this century, I must add to the list such names as Winter, Hummel the pianist, Weigl, Himmel, and, last and greatest, Beethoven, whose one opera, “Fidelio,” will endure in its pure nobility as long as music endures.
The romantic school of poetry now finding its way into Germany, was soon aided by appropriate musical settings by Spohr, Marschner, and Weber—the greatest of them all. Of his operas, “Der Freischütz” is the finest, the most popular, and the most thoroughly German.
Schumann wrote one opera, “Genoveva,” and Mendelssohn, ever searching for a libretto, commenced setting Geibel’s “Loreley,” but death came before he could finish it.
Meyerbeer, a Berliner by birth, and sometimes German in work, we have already noticed in connection with his French operas.
Richard Wagner, by his theories and his great compositions, has caused opera once more to become the field for dispute, research, and speculative thought.
He maintains, to put it briefly, that the real character and meaning of opera has been all this time misunderstood. He carries into practice what Gluck preached, viz., that music should second poetry, in order to be in its proper place. He says, “The error of the operatic art-form consists in the fact that music, which is really only a means of expression, is turned into an aim; while the real aim of expression, viz., the drama, is made a mere means.”
It seemed to him that the chief hindrance to the free action of drama was the concert aria, so he drops it altogether, using a melodious recitation in lieu of it, and calls his works dramas, not operas. His orchestra illustrates the emotions and thoughts of each character, and the peculiar timbre of each instrument supplies the individuality of the person represented—a practice suggested first by Monteverde; and he further binds together the various episodes and scenes in the story, by using shortmotovosor phrases which shall recall to the audience previous situations and events—a device used by Gluck, amongst others. Wagner very happily combines in himself the poet and musician. He rightly claims that his music should not be heard apart from its companions of equal value—the poem, the scenery, and the action. He has met with as much opposition as did Gluck, but the time has come when his works receive due recognition, and an appreciation increasing yearly in proportion to our unbiassed study of them.
However excessive we may feel the reformer’s zeal to have been, these masterly art-forms supply wholesome food for meditation, and numberless suggestions for action, to every earnest and unbigoted student of this and coming generations.